[Pages H1548-H1553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONTINUING EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4851) to provide a temporary extension of certain
programs, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 4851

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Extension Act of
2010''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``April 5, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``May 5, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``april 5, 2010'' and inserting ``may 5, 2010''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``September 4, 2010''
and inserting ``October 2, 2010''.
(2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed
Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public
Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``April 5, 2010'' and
inserting ``May 5, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``april
5, 2010'' and inserting ``may 5, 2010''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``October 5, 2010'' and
inserting ``November 5, 2010''.
(3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``April 5, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``May 5, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``September 4, 2010''
and inserting ``October 2, 2010''.
(4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``September 4, 2010'' and inserting
``October 2, 2010''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Continuing Extension Act of 2010; and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by
section 2 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law
111-144).

SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR
COBRA BENEFITS.

Subsection (a)(3)(A) of section 3001 of division B of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5), as amended by section 3(a) of the Temporary Extension
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), is amended by striking
``March 31, 2010'' and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.

SEC. 4. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.

Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) and as amended
by section 5 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-144), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``April 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``May 1, 2010''.

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE THERAPY CAPS EXCEPTIONS
PROCESS.

Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(g)(5)), as amended by section 6 of the Temporary
Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), is amended by
striking ``March 31, 2009'' and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.

SEC. 6. EHR CLARIFICATION.

(a) Qualification for Clinic-based Physicians.--
(1) Medicare.--Section 1848(o)(1)(C)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(o)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``setting (whether inpatient or outpatient)'' and
inserting ``inpatient or emergency room setting''.
(2) Medicaid.--Section 1903(t)(3)(D) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(t)(3)(D)) is amended by striking
``setting (whether inpatient or outpatient)'' and inserting
``inpatient or emergency room setting''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the
HITECH Act (included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5)).
(c) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement
the amendments made by this section by program instruction or
otherwise.

SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.

Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), as amended by section 7 of
the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), is
amended by striking ``March 31, 2010'' and inserting ``April
30, 2010''.

SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as
amended by section 8 of Public Law 111-144, is amended by
striking ``by substituting'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting ``by substituting April 30,
2010, for the date specified in each such section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be considered to have taken effect on February 28,
2010.

SEC. 9. SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION.

(a) Amendments to Section 119 of Title 17, United States
Code.--
(1) In general.--Section 119 of title 17, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``March 28, 2010''
and inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
(2) Termination of license.--Section 1003(a)(2)(A) of
Public Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``March 28, 2010'',
and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
(b) Amendments to Communications Act of 1934.--Section
325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``March 29, 2010''
each place it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting
``May 1, 2010''.

SEC. 10. COMPENSATION AND RATIFICATION OF AUTHORITY RELATED
TO LAPSE IN HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.

(a) Compensation for Federal Employees.--Any Federal
employees furloughed as a result of the lapse in expenditure
authority from the Highway Trust Fund after 11:59 p.m. on
February 28, 2010, through March 2, 2010, shall be
compensated for the period of that lapse at their standard
rates of compensation, as determined under policies
established by the Secretary of Transportation.
(b) Ratification of Essential Actions.--All actions taken
by Federal employees, contractors, and grantees for the
purposes of maintaining the essential level of Government
operations, services, and activities to protect life and
property and to bring about orderly termination of Government
functions during the lapse in expenditure authority from the
Highway Trust Fund after 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2010,
through March 2, 2010, are hereby ratified and approved if
otherwise in accord with the provisions of the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law
111-68).
(c) Funding.--Funds used by the Secretary to compensate
employees described in subsection (a) shall be derived from
funds previously authorized out of the Highway Trust Fund and
made available or limited to the Department of Transportation
by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-
117) and shall be subject to the obligation limitations
established in such Act.
(d) Expenditures From Highway Trust Fund.--To permit
expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund to effectuate the
purposes of this section, this section shall be

[[Page H1549]]

deemed to be a section of the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-68), as in
effect on the date of the enactment of the last amendment to
such Resolution.

SEC. 11. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

(a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives, provided that such statement has
been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
(b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
This Act, with the exception of section 4, is designated as
an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles. In the
Senate, this Act is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010.
(c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act,
with the exception of section 4, is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2
U.S.C. 933(g)).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.

General Leave

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Capps
be allowed to control 10 minutes of the time allocated to me and be
allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
This bill, Madam Speaker, provides another short-term extension for a
number of programs that are expiring at the end of the month. If we
fail to act on this bill, Americans around the country will begin
running out of unemployment benefits by the beginning of the next
month. We've been here before. By the end of April, over 1 million
Americans will exhaust their unemployment benefits.
This bill would merely continue the existing Federal unemployment
programs for 1 month, as Congress works toward a longer extension. It
does not increase the number of weeks of benefits provided by these
programs.
Now, I know many of my colleagues are as frustrated as I am that we
have to keep extending these programs every month, as opposed to
continuing them to the end of the year.
Jobless Americans shouldn't have to wait until the last minute to
know whether their economic lifeline will continue. We need a long-term
extension of these programs, a goal I very much hope we will achieve
before the end of the next month.
In the meantime, I'm urging my colleagues to join me in supporting
this critical stopgap legislation to extend unemployment benefits, as
well as other critical assistance, including help for paying for
continuing health coverage under COBRA.
Before I close, let me say that I hope we don't see a repeat
performance from last month when a single Republican Senator blocked
these vital benefits for so many Americans. He complained about the
cost of these benefits for unemployed workers. Where were those
concerns when we embarked on two wars without paying for one cent of
them?
Where were the cries of outrage about the budget deficit when two tax
cuts for our wealthiest citizens were enacted with no offsets
whatsoever?
Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when
President Bush turned the biggest budget surplus in our Nation's
history into the biggest deficit in our history and brought on the
unemployment which is now facing us?
When Republicans complain about the deficit, it's like an arsonist
complaining about a fire. He lit the match, but takes no responsibility
for the resulting blaze.
The truth is, there is no better use of Federal resources than
helping Americans who are struggling to find work. Workers today are
facing a situation where there are six people looking for every
available job in this country. It is a bad situation. So I hope my
friends on the other side of the aisle will join me in supporting this
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1500

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I
would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for his magnanimous
comments and the bipartisan spirit of this bill as we come to the floor
right now. At least it is not as much animus as we find in the United
States Senate.
I rise today in support of this legislation to extend important
benefits that help long-term unemployed workers, including unemployment
insurance and health coverage assistance through COBRA. In addition,
H.R. 4851 postpones the drastic cuts to Medicare physician payment
rates, a critical factor for our health care providers, as well as a
number of other important provisions that expire at the end of the
month or sooner.
While I support this assistance, the American people should be under
no illusion that this will create jobs. It does no such thing. In spite
of claims last year that the Democrats' stimulus package would keep
unemployment from rising above 8 percent, it has risen from 5.5 to 9.7
percent nationwide and 10.7 percent in Kentucky. Just yesterday, senior
administration officials testified they don't expect to see much
improvement in the job market this year. We have already spent almost
$100 billion on unemployment benefits, with another $50 billion in the
pipeline through 2010.
I am disappointed that the majority has again chosen to subvert their
so-called PAYGO rules by not paying for this short-term extension.
Again, 83 percent of the Federal budget is exempt from the PAYGO
legislation that was supposed to pay-as-you-go. While the bill before
us today is necessary, it is not a long-term solution. It is
inefficient, and it buys us time to actually fix the root causes.
Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs as promised, the Democrats'
stimulus bill was followed by more than 3 million additional job
losses. A record 16 million are now unemployed. A significant number
are underemployed. And all Americans are asking one simple question
that I hear all the time at home, and all of my colleagues do, Where
are the jobs? Record numbers are collecting unemployment benefits
instead of paychecks.
The need to pass this bill today reflects the failure of the
Democrats' stimulus bill and subsequent efforts to create the jobs they
promised. For this failure we will spend another $6 billion next month
on Federal unemployment benefits, borrowing that money from our
children and our grandchildren. Millions will soon exhaust these
benefits and wonder what comes next.
What Americans want are jobs, not handouts. To really help unemployed
workers, we need to craft policies that will actually create jobs so
unemployed workers can get back to work, so capital will be invested,
so companies will invest in machines and development and growth, so the
market will come back and they will hire people who will in fact become
taxpayers to contribute to the economy and to meet their own needs.
Doing so requires ending the massive tax, spend, and borrow plans of
the Democrat Congress and administration. These policies have created
severe uncertainty among American workers and businesses that leads to
economic stagnation and discourages hiring.
If you want to look at the full fruit of such policies, all we need
to do is look at Eastern Europe in the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s
that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire. We could eliminate all
of the uncertainty that we have today economically and get the private
sector American job creation engine humming again by immediately
providing real tax relief to businesses and families across the Nation.
In addition, we should scrap plans for a government takeover of health
care and focus on reform that actually

[[Page H1550]]

reduces cost; reengineer the government system that wastes almost $200
billion a year on overhead that never sees the way to senior citizen
health benefits; and do the private market reforms and bring about
meaningful medical liability reform that will end defensive medicine
costs that cost almost one-third of all medical costs.
We should rescind unspent funds from the failed stimulus bill and the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, the so-called TARP bill, and apply all
of these funds to one thing, which is reducing our deficit, which I
believe the gentleman from Kentucky, the United States Senator, tried
to do 2 weeks ago and was disparaged by people in the Democratic Party
in the House and the Senate and in the administration for simply saying
let's pay for something with money that we already have available.
Businesses can't thrive in an economy falsely buoyed by temporary
stimulus funds and taxpayer-funded bailouts. In order to create jobs,
we have got to empower the people to make their own choices. We need to
craft legislation in Congress that won't cause additional harm to our
economy but will instead give Americans the flexibility they need to
grow their businesses.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington
for yielding time.
There is a very important provision of this bill that we are hoping
to pass for a second time to send back to the other body, and that is
to correct the lapse in payment to 1,913 employees of the Federal
Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration because the authority for the Federal highway program
lapsed due to the objections of the Senator, the Representative in the
other body, who held up the bill and then delayed the whole process,
and through no fault of their own, these hardworking career employees
were shortchanged.
A long-term secretary of the Federal Highway Administration office in
Seattle, who would normally net $1,548, lost $390 because of that
furlough. That is unreasonable. An entry-level program analyst in
Chicago of the Federal Highway Administration normally would take home
$1,200, but would take a $300 cut for doing his job. Well, that is
unreasonable. The bill we have before us will reinstate these funds.
And I just want to restate what I said just a couple weeks ago, the
Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan arbiter of the cost of
legislation, determined that H.R. 4786 will not require any new Federal
funding and will not increase outlays. It will draw on administrative
funding that has already been authorized and appropriated for the
department. It will not cost the Federal Government a single dollar
beyond amounts already provided. The Secretary of Transportation has
already moved, is prepared to move these dollars as soon as we give him
that authority. We ought to do that now.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I recognize myself for 1 minute, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has been yielded time, but he
does not control that time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the distinguished gentleman from Texas control his 10 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the Chair insisting on regular
order. It's nice that we have that. That's a good thing, not a bad
thing.
I am going to yield myself, Madam Speaker, 1 minute.
We are here today because sometime this morning the majority decided,
or at least they decided to inform the minority, to extend a number of
bills, several of which are primary jurisdictional to the Energy and
Commerce Committee, of which I am the ranking member. Probably the most
important of the bills in terms of economic impact in the short term is
the physician reimbursement fix, the DRG fix. If I understand this bill
correctly, it has been extended for another month.
We also have the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act, which is
totally within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
And it is also being extended for 1 month.
Madam Speaker, we don't have to do this kind of thing. If we could
really get to regular order, we could bring these bills up, we could
work in a bipartisan fashion, and we could find permanent or at least
annual solutions to these bills. We don't have to hully gully this type
of thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
And to be told at 10 o'clock this morning about this bill, which is a
compilation of several bills, is just a disservice to the American
people.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, Mr. Cliff Stearns of Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I have to
say I like his term ``hully gully.'' That is probably a good
description of what has happened here. I am sure a lot of Members don't
even know about this extension. So I think it is a credit to the
majority that they brought this up, because I think all of us want to
see this important medical correction for doctors.
Under the current SGR formula, doctors face a 21 percent cut in their
Medicare reimbursement. This fix would delay those cuts until April 30.
Because the majority has not properly addressed real Medicare reform,
we continue in the House to apply these short-term patches rather than
provide doctors with a permanent solution to the reimbursement formula.
We have known about this for a long time. There is no reason we have to
bring this up, as the ranking member says, hully gully.
Although this correction, fix, extension is important, also important
in this bill is the Satellite Home Viewers Act, which is extended
through April 30. I am glad that this extension is included, but I am
hoping we can move the 5-year extension that passed this body
overwhelmingly, bipartisan support, by a large margin, but now my
colleagues have bogged down in the United States Senate. This temporary
extension that we are voting on today includes the section 119 licenses
which actually govern the transmission of distant and local television
signals by cable and satellite television operators as well as
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 concerning the
retransmission of broadcast station signals. As you can see, this is
very important to get this full 5-year extension.
My colleagues, in December 2009 the House passed the Satellite Home
Viewer Reauthorization Act by 394-11. And yet here we are, we can't
seem to shake the bill loose in the Senate, although the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the Senate Judiciary
Committees have all reported this measure out of their committees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. STEARNS. I am glad we are extending this important law
temporarily, but I am hopeful it will move forward on a permanent
basis, a 5-year extension. And obviously, I am very glad the current
SGR formula is being fixed, corrected today, and at least we have a 30-
day hiatus.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4851.
This bill takes the necessary steps to extend crucial health care
provisions in law that would otherwise expire soon. Although there is a
sense of deja vu in voting to prevent an impending 21 percent cut to
Medicare and TRICARE reimbursements, we must take action to prevent
those cuts from going into effect. I am sure all of my colleagues are
well aware of what such cuts would mean to the health providers in
their own districts and the restricted access to patients if the cuts
happen.

[[Page H1551]]

The House can be proud of passing H.R. 3961 this last fall to
permanently solve the annual Sustainable Growth Rate, or the SGR,
program. But our friends in the other Chamber have failed thus far to
act. And until they do, we must ensure that the cuts do not go into
effect.
H.R. 4851 also provides a crucial extension to the current arbitrary
Medicare beneficiary therapy caps. When outpatient therapy is
considered medically necessary for a patient, we should never put an
arbitrary limit on the dollar amount that can be spent to provide this
important care. And I support the provisions of this bill to allow
Medicare beneficiaries to continue receiving the outpatient therapy
care that they need.
Finally, I applaud the inclusion of a provision in this bill to
correct an inadvertent error regarding electronic health records and
incentive payments for physicians who implement them. Through our
technical correction in this legislation, we will ensure that
physicians who work in outpatient clinics that are owned by hospitals
will be eligible for these important incentive payments. Encouraging
the adoption of health information technology in all health care
settings is a priority shared by my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. I am pleased that we will further improve adoption of electronic
health records with this fix.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4851 and the important health
care provisions included in this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
It may have been explained before I got on the floor, so if I am
repeating something that has already been said, I want to apologize in
advance. But I do want the American people to know what this bill does.
It is a bill that takes eight existing laws, and as I understand it,
extends them for 1 month. It takes the unemployment insurance fund,
extends it for a month; the COBRA premium assistance fund, extends it
for a month; the Medicare physician freeze, it prohibits that for
another month--or the cut to physician reimbursement under Medicare. An
extension of Medicare therapy caps, extension for a month. A very
unusual situation where we are going to use 2009 poverty numbers
instead of 2010 poverty numbers, because apparently in 2010 the poverty
level in the United States went down, so the majority wants to use 2009
numbers so that there will be larger payments for some of the poverty
programs, which is interesting given that the deficit is over a
trillion dollars this year.

{time} 1515

An extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, extension of
the Satellite Television Home Viewer Act, a program out of the
transportation committee to repay furloughed workers on highway
projects, those are the eight current laws that are being extended.
There is also a technical fix on health IT in terms of the definition
of doctors that worked for hospitals or worked for clinics.
None of these issues, Madam Speaker, needs to be addressed in the
type of an omnibus extension on such a short term. Every one of these
on its own has merit. Every one of these on its own could come to the
floor in a bipartisan fashion and be debated and probably pass for
longer than 1 month.
I am trying to understand why the three bills that are in the
committee of jurisdiction that I am the ranking member of, the Energy
and Commerce Committee, that's the Medicare Physician Freeze, the
Medicare Therapy Caps Extension, and the Satellite Television Home
Viewers Act, why those three bills have to come to the floor for 1
month in this fashion.
I don't know when the majority decided to do this. I know that the
minority staff was informed of it at approximately 10 o'clock this
morning. We're now on the floor at 3:15 in the afternoon.
Take aside the merits of the programs on policy and process alone, we
should vote these down on suspension. In a week in which the American
public is expressing legitimate outrage because the majority is
contemplating bringing the biggest domestic policy bill of this
Congress, i.e., the health care reform package, to the floor under a
rule that would have a self-executing feature to it where we would deem
something passed if we pass the rule, it would seem to me that the
Speaker and the majority leader and the committee chairman would not
want to pile insult onto insult and bring these bills to the floor
under a process where you combine bills from numerous committees of
jurisdiction with no notice, for all intents and purposes, and bring
them to the floor. At least in this case we are going to get an up-or-
down vote on the bill, which is a good thing. But it's not a vote on
the rule that self-executes. So I want to commend Chairwoman Slaughter
of the Rules Committee for that and Speaker Pelosi.
But again, we don't have to operate, the United States of America,
like we're a third-world country that doesn't know how to run a
democracy.
Again, on the merits, Republicans have said for physician
reimbursement we believe there should be a fix. We believe that the
physicians need to be reimbursed in a fair fashion in the current
Medicare reimbursement system. We support some of these therapy cap
reforms. We certainly support the Satellite Television Home Viewer Act.
So this isn't something that the only way to do it is to put it
together in a big package and put it on the floor 1 month at a time.
The only advantage I can see is that this just kind of treads water; it
provides some sort of a vote this afternoon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield myself 30 additional seconds.
So I guess the other thing that I need to point out to Members of the
body and to the American public is, because of the procedure, this is
all deemed, apparently--and I hate to use that word. This is all
defined to be emergency, and so it's not paid for.
The rule that brought these bills to the floor waives PAYGO, and my
recollection is not too many months ago my friends in the majority were
beating themselves and congratulating themselves because they had
instituted these tough PAYGO rules. But if I am correct, I believe that
none of this is paid for and the rule does not require PAYGO.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I still have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute. The
gentleman from Kentucky has 6 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield 1 minute to a distinguished member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee from Flower Mound and Denton,
Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
One minute is not much time to deal with what is a very complicated
process. It is unfortunate we didn't have more time to actually look at
this bill before it came to the floor on the concept of expanding the
definition of a hospital-based physician for the use and purposes of
electronic medical records in the stimulus bill that was passed last
year. That's a good provision. That was language that we had asked for
in the letter that was signed by 293 Members of this body that went to
the acting director for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
I do have to point out, Ranking Member Barton is exactly right. This
SGR problem is not an emergency. Everyone in this body knew this was
going to happen. What this signals us is perhaps the Democrats don't
have the votes to pass their health care bill because, otherwise, the
fix would be included in their health care bill. The fact that we are
having to provide yet another month signals to me that they don't have
the votes to pass their larger underlying bill.
There is no other Member in this body that wants this SGR fixed more
intensely than I do, but this is not the way to go about it. It is not
an emergency. It should not come to us at the 11th hour. That is an
insult to the Nation's physicians. They can't run their businesses when
we always do it in this fashion.
Mrs. CAPPS. I continue to reserve.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening
statement, I urge support for H.R. 4851 to

[[Page H1552]]

continue unemployment and health insurance benefits for long-term
unemployed workers, along with extensions of other important expiring
provisions like the Medicare reimbursement provisions that my colleague
from Texas just mentioned.
But as we, as a Congress, redouble our efforts on the task of
empowering Americans to create jobs, we need to remember the four
causes of this. Even as we help in those places where jobs are hardest
to find, promoting job growth ultimately needs to be the broader goal.
One thing that we could do as a Congress to promote job growth and
help our economy stand up and restore confidence in investing would be
to stop the ramming of this health care bill through the House of
Representatives presumably without even taking a vote on it. I think
there is a small detail in the Constitution that would suggest my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a small problem
explaining that to their constituents.
But let's look at the base principles in this bill. There are good
elements in it, small individual elements. But the framework, the
foundation on which it is built is not only flawed, it would be
destructive to the American economy and make it into the equivalent of
an Eastern European health care system within 10 years.
First of all, it's based on huge tax increases. We still don't know
what the reconciliation numbers are, but we know by commentary off the
floor that the score from the Congressional Budget Office was far more
than anything that's been presented in public thus far. Taxing health
insurance is going to do one thing. It's going to reduce access to
health insurance because less benefits will be provided by employers.
It's very simple. Those of us who have run businesses understand this.
We go without payroll to make sure our employees are covered. But we
need to keep in mind the reality of what is happening. Taking money out
of our pockets to fuel the growth of Federal bureaucracy is not right.
The second thing that's done on the opposite end of the pipeline is a
half a trillion dollar cut in Medicare benefits. In my going on 6 years
in Congress, I have never seen $1 taken out of waste of the Center of
Medicare Services. We hire more people, we put more rules in place, but
we don't take the overhead out to simplify the processes.
Indeed, in the Ways and Means Committee, a simple amendment offered
by the gentleman from Illinois to study point of sale and credit card
architecture technology that's used in every convenience store in
America was rejected; as one gentleman from Texas called it, a pumpkin
designed to enrich insurance executives. We use that every day. We use
that in our identification cards here to vote. We don't have that
integrated in our government. That's why citizens complain all the time
about dealing with Washington, D.C.
The final thing that's done on top of all of this is the only job
creation program that's coming out of the legislation being considered
this week is the hiring of over a hundred thousand new Federal workers
who have to be paid for by taxpayers. That means that many jobs have to
be created for every one of those.
When I stop and think about this, I'm amazed, because we're not
fixing the waste, the excess, the broken processes, the unintegrated
database, and the contradictory regulations between the agencies. All
we're doing is making the problem bigger and, in the end, it will
result--as your own bill says with its waiting list language--in
rationed care.
Finally, let's talk about the overwhelming majority of the American
people. It is astounding to me the awareness level at all levels of our
society of this bill and, frankly, the fear that is out there; not fear
from things I say back home, but when people read the bill and see what
it means. I'm not talking about cable television fear mongers. I'm
talking simply about good Americans who are doing their civics homework
like some of my colleagues in both bodies have failed to do and don't
remember the basis of why we're sent here. And then when we can't get
that popular vote because of fear of Members of retribution in the
fall--which I guarantee you is going to come and all of us will be held
accountable for our vote--to deem a bill that takes over nearly one-
fifth of the economy--let's think what ``deeming'' means for my fellow
Americans watching.
I could deem each of my children a Ph.D. I could deem them a good
house. I could deem them a great future. In fact, while we're here
deeming things, let's deem world peace, then we would do away with lots
of expenditures. You all know the absurdity of that statement on the
false premise that is raised with deeming. Why are we doing it? Because
it creates a subterfuge that is wrong and violates Article 1 of the
Constitution.
At the end of the day, there will be an accounting to the American
people. We agree on good things that can get done. Let's do those good
things. Let's fix the government waste, fix the private market, and
provide real medical liability reform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I yield back any remaining time that I
might have.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleagues. I think
they wanted the 20 minutes to talk about the health care bill. They
didn't really want to talk about this piece of legislation that's out
here in front of us.
This bill is here because the Republicans in the Senate continue to
use the filibuster to stop any orderly process over there of dealing
with the problems of this country.
And I don't know whether it's ignorance or amnesia, but ``deeming''
is a process that comes out of something that some of the senior
Members know about, maybe the junior Members don't know about. This is
called the Jefferson's Manual, and it provides the rules for the House,
and it's where ``deeming'' comes from and all of the rest of the things
that happen in the House.
In fact, just to remind you, Speaker Hastert, Speaker Gingrich used
deeming on 202 occasions. Now, this is no big surprise. This is no
surprise that fell out of the sky.
And no, I won't yield. I think I've listened to you talk about
deeming enough. I want to talk about deeming for a second.
Deeming is rules of the House, and the reason you're doing that is so
that we can get something done because people in the Senate are
requiring, through the filibuster, that 60 votes be in the way of
anything that happens. Now, if you insist on that when 50 votes is a
majority, then you're going to get things like using arcane rules in
this thousand-page rule book. And we will use it just like Speaker
Gingrich used it, just like Speaker Hastert used it, to get around
obstructionists.
And now I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

{time} 1530

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My
question is when you, as a party, deemed the debt increase of nearly $2
trillion, I would say that it makes any deeming of budgetary issues,
even the Deficit Reduction Act reconciliation process, seem almost as a
grain of sand. We might as well deem all votes and not even come here
and answer mail in our offices if we are going to continue to deem one-
fifth of the economy under government control.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Ultimately, we have to go out and face this. And when
we pass this health care bill, you are free to campaign against a bill
that gives health coverage to 30 million Americans and that closes the
doughnut hole. If you want, you can go home and argue with the seniors
and say, I didn't want a bill that closed the doughnut hole. That was a
stupid bill. I voted against it. What you are free to do after this
bill passes is to go home and argue against the things that are in the
bill. The people back home have no understanding what ``deeming'' is.
It's inside baseball in this place. You wait, when you go and try, on
the campaign trail, to sell the idea that you were against doing
anything for 30 million people.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. When the cashier at our local supermarket
asked me about the reconciliation process and deeming and how can you
pass something you don't vote on, I think the message is already at the
grassroots.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I would suggest that the gentleman has tried to create

[[Page H1553]]

an issue, but it won't last. Nobody remembers any of the debate before
Social Security. Nobody remembers any of the debate before Medicare. Of
course, there were people saying all kinds of things out here. But when
the bill is in, the people will take the benefits and be grateful for
the Congress that acted on their behalf. I urge everyone to vote for
this bill. The unemployed should not suffer again because of Senate
filibusters.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, drip, drip, drip.
Here we are for yet another extension of unemployment benefits and
various related programs. These programs have been repeatedly extended,
even as Democrats claim their economic stimulus plan has worked and is
creating jobs. Well, it's not, and our presence on this floor today is
yet another affirmation of that obvious fact. If stimulus was working,
more people would have paychecks. But it's not, so we are here to hand
out more unemployment checks instead.
Let's review the history of just the unemployment benefit extensions
we are continuing today.
In June 2008, Congress created a new Federal ``temporary''
unemployment benefit program paying 13 weeks of unemployment benefits,
on top of 26 weeks of State benefits. CBO said the UI portion of that
bill would cost $14 billion. Unemployment was 5.5 percent.
In November 2008, that temporary program was expanded by 20 weeks of
benefits--for a new total of 59 weeks of UI per person. CBO said that
would cost just under $6 billion. Unemployment was 6.9 percent.
In February 2009, Democrats' stimulus plan extended the temporary
program through 2009 and nationalized the Federal/State extended
benefits program, among other changes. That added another 20 weeks of
Federal benefits, for a total of up to 79 weeks per person. CBO said
that would cost $40 billion. Unemployment was 8.2 percent.
In November 2009, Congress added another 20 weeks of temporary
extended benefits, for a record total of 99 weeks of UI per person. CBO
estimated that would cost $2 billion just in the last few weeks of
2009. Unemployment was 10 percent.
In December 2009, the temporary program was extended for two months.
CBO said that would cost $14 billion. Unemployment was 10 percent.
Last month the program was extended through March, at a cost of $8
billion. Unemployment was 9.7 percent.
And here we are again today, pondering yet another extension or
expansion--the sixth of the program created in the summer of 2008--
costing yet another $6 billion. Since this program began, CBO estimates
would suggest we will have spent a total of $90 billion on Federal UI
benefits through the end of next month. And that's not counting another
$50-plus billion it would cost to extend these programs for the rest of
this year, as the Senate approved last week.
Unemployment has soared from 5.5 percent to 10 percent. Yet our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle press on with their claims
that this is somehow creating jobs. It's not.
What it is creating is more unemployment taxes, to cover the costs of
the record unemployment benefits States are paying out. Those are taxes
on jobs, which are rising in 35 States this year, by a total of 44
percent.
Madam Speaker, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again
and again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what
unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start
over and do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed
workers. That means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats'
government health care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending
expiring tax cuts on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful
stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing any tax until the
economy has fully recovered.
Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will
simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping
unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4851, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________